Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I'm pretty sure the guys giving me lattes are making money. Of course, they're also giving me a product I want at a price I'm willing to pay. I attribute this to them knowing their customers and what their customers want, making that product in a time-honored fashion and not fucking around with any part of the formula. I'm sure the owner of that shop (Which is a small local chain) is making a lot less than the Netflix CEO. But I think we're ALL making more than Netflix right now.

Hulu has only a tiny fraction of the programming Netflix streaming does, let alone discs...

Yes it can get you current TV. Which I can get for free with a DVR.

Netflix streaming movie selections are pretty limited - but stream TV has a lot wider scope, and is well worth the VERY LOW price Netflix is currently charging (yes it's still really low even after the increase).

When did we as consumers decide to forgo quality over convenience? I recently tested Netflix. I was sorely disappointed with the quality of the video as well as the lack-luster audio quality. I quickly deleted my account within minutes of opening it. Until they are able to stream true HD sound I see no reason to give up disks. 7.1 is a beautiful thing...not going to waste it.:-)

walkman over full stereocompressed DVD over laser diskMP3's over mobile CD playerswatching movies and TV shows on phones/tablets/computers instead of a big TV in full HDPC's over main frameslaptops over PC'stablets and netbooks over real laptops/desktops

the list goes on and on with mobility and convenience always winning over quality

You don't need an eighteen wheeler to move a single TV set. Doing spreadsheets or databases with only a few thousand records on a mainframe is wasteful. As is putting an apostrophe in PCs.

laptops over PC's

Same thing. No reason to be tied to a desk if the laptop does the job. No reason to carry a travelling trunk when you're only going to be gone two days. The thing with both of them is use of the proper tool, not convinience. You don't need a sledgehammer to open a walnut.

Audio cassettes over vinyl, MP3 over CD, VHS over Laserdisc... a long time ago. It's not that quality is not important, but in a lot of cases it reaches 'good enough' quite quickly. VHS quality is probably okay, DVD definitely is. HD is obviously better, but if you're watching something good then you'll rarely find yourself distracted by the poor video quality even if it's only at VHS levels. I'd certainly take being able to watch any film I wanted, when I wanted it, at DVD quality over having to wait a

I have tapes recorded in lowfi mono that are far more artful than anything in 7.1 recorded at 192khz. This is not quality...its a numbers game. Does 7.1 sound nice? Yes...but if the content is good, it shouldn't matter.

I look at Netflix as something that I can test out movies I wouldn't have otherwise watched. For $7 a month, I'm not sure if I'm going to care if I don't get 7.1 out of something that costs as much as 2 coffees. And yet,

99% of all 7.1 systems out there are utter crap for music reproduction.

I have sat and listened to ONE that had cheap $1200 each speakers for the 7.1 system. it was fantastic, not Dolby encoded but true 7 channel recording with the subwoofer muted because all 7 speakers had 8" drivers for real sound. the source materiel was recorded in the middle of a orchestra that encircled the recording gear.

on most home systems it would sound like crap because almost ALL home systems have $3.00 speakers for 5 of the 7

No, but you do pay for the food. The content creator isn't asking for a tip...they are asking for a specific amount of money to watch their movie. In the case of a loaned DVD...the person paying for the DVD originally paid for the right to loan this. When I wrote software and it had to run from disc (this was YEARS ago), my only rule for loans was that you had to loan the original media -- not copies. I gave a shit load of my software away for free -- bo

even pros can't align that many speakers in your typical small (not theater sized) room.

but as long as you bought into the MARKETING that more channels == better sound, hey, have fun.

just giving you a hint: less is more when it comes to audio. 2 plus a sub gives audio AND movies all it needs.

at home, you just don't need speakers coming out of every direction. that's the bose effect. you think that's good? interesting how you are affected by salesman (everyone who bought into multichannel at home was sold by some salesguy in person or online.)

just a pet peeve of mine. as a sound guy, I just shudder to think of all the cancellations and reflections that happen with even 5.1, let alone 7.x in a home sized room. my gawd! but again, some people LIKE the bose 'spray sound everywhere' effect.

its is NOT hifi, though. at least admit that much. its loud and coming from everywhere but its not hifi. too many reflections ruin the subtle high-end dacs you guys also insist on running (DTS and higher bit rate dolby, lol!)

This is why you use a room correction system like Audyssey MultEQ XT. The difference that finite impulse response equalization (over the frequency and time domains) makes is staggering beyond description.

but as long as you bought into the MARKETING that more channels == better sound, hey, have fun.

Well, it's only a partial fallacy. Surround sound makes no sense. When listening to music, are you sitting in the middle of the orchestra, or in the audience where the theater's acoustics have been engineered for you to listen in, with all the sound from in front of you? In a movie, I find having sounds come from anywhere but the screen itself a distraction. Quad sound would make sense for movies if there were a speaker at each corner of the screen, so sounds could travel up and down as well as right and left.

However, the more drivers of different sizes you put in an enclosure, the better it will sound, especially if you separate the different frequencies into channels for each speakers.

And if you have real speakers (at least three ways with a real woofer in each one twelve inches or more diameter, eighteen is better), subwoofers are not only unnecessary, they will actually degrade the sound. Subwoofers are only necessary to overcome what was the downfall of quadraphonics in the '70s -- the cost of good woofers. I argued with a professor in an undergrad physics class about this when quadraphonics were new, and he actually conceded that I was right when I brought my two Kenwood 777s and a cheap stereo amp in. The trouble with quadraphonic was that you had to have twice everything, so a $1000 stereo would sound remarkably better than a $1000 quad setup. That, and you have the (planned and engineered) interference between the left channel's low frequencies and the right channel's. That is missing with a subwoofer, even though the ear can't discern the position of a sound with a wavelength longer than your head is wide.

Surround only worked because the price of the amps had come down so far, and the price of four big woofers was mitigated by having a single sub.

its is NOT hifi, though.

Even stereo CDs aren't. People misunderstand Nyquist, and think it means that you get perfect sound until you hit the Nyquist limit, but in actuality the closer you get to the limit, the more aliasing you get. There is no way to discern a 15kHz sine wave from a 15kHz sawtooth wave with only three samples per wave. I have never heard a CD through any equipment that would make me think it was a live performance, but I have heard LPs that were that good (and yes, it has to be well engineered in the studio or it's still not high fidelity).

And as you point out, people don't think of interference, with waves doubling and cancelling each other.

When I was finally getting around to hooking up my surround speakers, a friend of mine who works post for TV (some of the most popular shows on) and the occasional movie said "don't bother with 7.1, we mix for 5.1, and your receiver is just inventing the other two channels". And even for 5.1 they're pretty sparing about using the surround channels in a lot of cases. For music, almost nobody mixes for more than stereo for a variety of reasons.

"You only have 2 ears, you shouldn't need much more than 2 speakers."that is the stupidest thing I have read on/.

We hear all around us. We detect spatial positioning with our ears.

"Sounds much better than any speakers I'm willing to pay for."sure,. if you arr cheap, you find a cheap solution. That's not the same as accurately reproduction of sound.

With a good sound system, you can not only get a feel of were something is, but how far. That's the mark of a high quality system.When you here the shells from Ripley's gun bouncing of the ground and they sound like the are bouncing at your feet, and feel something coming up from 50 feet away at the same time. Neither of which are actually on screen when you hear them. That, my friend, is good sound.

And no, my sound system isn't that good. But I don't kid myself that my systems is as good as a real high quality system

Plus, it doesn't run on Linux without hacks which are more hassle than its worth.

As someone who runs Linux as his sole home OS, I can honestly say that doesn't matter one bit. Companies succeed on sales, and not fairness. Realistically Linux users are such a trivially small portion of the market that any company coming out with any product can safely ignore that segment without any fear of that decision harming business. If it works on Windows and Mac (and even the Mac part isn't all THAT important), then its good enough from a business perspective.

Because the MPAA phearz the penguinz? With Windows 8 you'll have DRM built into the OS which won't boot unless it's on a 'secure' system, whereas on Linux someone will hack out the DRM from any software Netflix provide.

Which is fine. If Netflix let me watch their streaming service in xbmc as we do for everything else, then we'd be giving them money. As it is, we just borrow DVDs from the library. Their loss.

No company should have to ignore any OS as a market when there are standards for streaming video. The problem is not market share; the problem is control. Netflix cannot take the chance that someone will rip its streams or in any way control their videos, likely due to the demands of the MPAA.

People who want rips of movies don't need to go with netflix. This is what I don't understand. Netflix shouldn't need to have any kind of DRM, because at the end of the day, it's a terrible way to copy things. If you want to copy something, it's easy enough to just copy it from the DVD or even BluRay original copy. As long as Netflix doesn' allow you to download at full speed (just fast enough to watch it, with ample buffering) then it's a no-go for pirating. Because you can get a DVD rip off bittorrent much faster.

People who want rips of movies don't need to go with netflix. This is what I don't understand. Netflix shouldn't need to have any kind of DRM, because at the end of the day, it's a terrible way to copy things. If you want to copy something, it's easy enough to just copy it from the DVD or even BluRay original copy.

No, it's simply that ripping from DVD or BluRay is easier than ripping from Netflix. Thus the effort to make ripping from Netflix as difficult as possible. Your argument is basically "People don't do X, because it's far easier to do Y instead," while ignoring the fact that the REASON it's easier to do Y is because X has been deliberately made difficult.

If Netflix was easily ripped, you can bet there would be programs out there that just sit there and rip shit off Netflix all day long. It's unlimited view, you don't pay per rental, just bandwidth. It looks legitimate -- they have no idea you're ripping, for all they know you're just a movie freak who watches ten movies per day -- so it's perfectly safe. It would be vastly preferable to any other type of illegal ripping, if it worked, which it does not. And there's a reason for it.

I tend to agree, however their primary competition (Amazon Prime) supports Linux with no hassle. To make matters worse, NetFlix is not simply refusing to support Linux, they are actively preventing Linux users from accessing content. Chromebooks (essentially Chrome running on a streamlined Ubuntu distro) can access content just fine, but they've intentionally prevented the Chrome extension from working on standard Linux browsers.

It has nothing to do with security, the world and their dog knows Win PCs are the haven of pirates and copyright infringed media.

Your claim is that Windows computers have been used to store a lot of pirated media. What does that have to do with the effectiveness of security or DRM in relation to the OS?

I mean, I agree that the Netflix excuse of requiring the right hardware/software for working with their DRM is a lie. But assuming it were not... the difference in it being Windows or Linux, from a DRM perspective, would likely favor Windows (particularly Windows 7).

streaming is the future BECAUSE it involves higher DRM than dvd's have.

its just that simple and no need to look any further.

the industry loves BD since its harder to break. they love streaming since it costs almost nothing and has tougher drm than dvd.

streaming is good FOR THEM. physical media is better FOR ME.

please avoid their streaming models: make it fail, people. the sooner we sink their sales on streaming the sooner they'll return to physical media. physical media is much more freedom-oriented (and the quality is higher, too).

and as isp's put more and more caps on your bandwidth, I don't see being MORE dependant on the internet as being a good thing. not at all. its a drug dealer situation: they want you addicted to streaming so that they can control all the cards.

don't fall for it. don't give them what they dream about. it will never be good for you and me.

streaming is the future BECAUSE it involves higher DRM than dvd's have. its just that simple and no need to look any further.

Yeah that so totally explains iTunes and Spotify thriving and CD sales in sharp decline.

streaming is good FOR THEM. physical media is better FOR ME.

You may notice there's an 800lb gorilla in the room here, it's not legal but it mostly resembles streaming...

and as isp's put more and more caps on your bandwidth, I don't see being MORE dependant on the internet as being a good thing. not at all. its a drug dealer situation: they want you addicted to streaming so that they can control all the cards.

It's not my fault your country is going backwards technologically. Here's how a country with progress [www.ssb.no] looks like, average = green, mean = blue. I'm on 60 Mbit uncapped for less than $100/mo and a BluRay costs about $30. Cue the Swede with 100 Mbit for $40. Delivering broadband is getting cheaper and cheaper, if you're not seeing it then you're getting ripped off.

Population density is a tired old cliche for poor broadband options in the US. The reality is that there are many dense areas all over the US where several million people live rather close to each other. If those cities cannot get the levels of broadband currently available all over the world, it's pretty obvious the problem is the duopoly situation with ISPs, and absolutely nothing to do with density.

No one is talking about 100% coverage. So stop making girly excuses for your lack of options and zero competition. There is no reason why LA and NYC cannot have the best of the best using your incorrect and feeble population density excuse.

Nothing will improve until apologist like yourself stop accepting the situation.

But even if that was the issue, then the midwest is irrelevant. Why does, say, New York City with a population similar to that of Sweden, but a population density three orders of magnitude higher not have cheap broadband like all the places that do apparently because "the have high population density"?

I imagine the high cost of ripping out the old infrastructure and replacing it with the newer stuff. I gotta think it would be a bitch, much less expensive just on rewiring all those old buildings as it is...

Almost every time this density thing comes up I point out that in this town [google.com] - and in the whole county - they have gigabit fiber to the premises at reasonable rates. This is not an urban metropolis. Zoom out the map a little and switch to satellite view to see what I mean.

streaming is the future BECAUSE it involves higher DRM than dvd's have.

its just that simple and no need to look any further.

the industry loves BD since its harder to break. they love streaming since it costs almost nothing and has tougher drm than dvd.

streaming is good FOR THEM. physical media is better FOR ME.

please avoid their streaming models: make it fail, people. the sooner we sink their sales on streaming the sooner they'll return to physical media. physical media is much more freedom-oriented (and the quality is higher, too).

and as isp's put more and more caps on your bandwidth, I don't see being MORE dependant on the internet as being a good thing. not at all. its a drug dealer situation: they want you addicted to streaming so that they can control all the cards.

don't fall for it. don't give them what they dream about. it will never be good for you and me.

You bring up some interesting points. Here's a few more to consider. Physical delivery of DVD's from Netflix or any other company rely on the USPS. They are having some serious budgetary issues, and congress seems unwilling to agree on anything let alone helping them. It appears that mail delivery may be cut back to 4 or 5 day per week sometime next year. To compound this, they are also likely to close half of their sorting centers. This will mean that most mail will take at minimum 2 days rather than the t

Blockbuster's site sucks compared to Netflix, and their disc mailing schedule is slower, but for me to put some pain in Netflix's wallet it has been worth it to me.

Giving money to Blockbuster won't pressure Netflix to improve streaming, Netflix already wanted that; it's every single movie producer that doesn't want it. And I presume both services have access to the same DVDs. So what are you accomplishing?

Starz was Netflix' biggest contract, and during renewal talks Netflix offered them ten times as much money to renew the deal. Starz still said no - not unless Netflix would make a special 'Starz' plan that cost more.

Big Content won't give Netflix a simple, reasonable streaming contracts because that's 'not the model'; they give Netflix the very last dregs of the market for a film, and when it looks like anyone might possibly be waiting for a film on Netflix rather than watching it somewhere else they stop giving Netflix streaming rights - and even try to fuck with their acquisition of DVDs.

It's content producers' obsession with gouging the shit out of every distribution channel and their delusional attempts to make internet video behave like premium cable services that keeps streaming shitty, not Netflix' management.

You hate Blockbuster, but you'll use it to punish Netflix. How about you show some contempt for the assholes holding the cards and pulling the strings rather than despising the companies that are trying to give you a cheap, convenient option for video?

But if customers aren't stupid they will notice decreased value of the service and switch to kiosk rentals.

Which have a Ron Jeremy-sized hard on for late fees- or at least, late fees under the new guise of charging you by the day. I don't know anyone who uses kiosks who doesn't pay as much or more in extra days as they did in outright penalties at old-school Blockbusters. You can say that people don't have to keep them for 8 days and this is true; people also don't have to pay the minimum on their credit cards or finance their cars, but they do and it's a predictable source of income for banks and car dealers. Much as extra days are a major source of income for Redbox.

Just because it's a machine in a parking lot and just because they don't call it a 'late fee' anymore doesn't mean the model is different. All they've done is remove the guilt and vindictive gouging from the process - and then promoted their new, spiffed up late fees as a convenience service.

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

Hate to break it to you, but the Netflix "watch instantly" library is shrinking (unless you count 27 episodes/season of Dora the Explora as individual titles) since desirable content is getting much more expensive (see the Starz licensing situation). If you are happy with the streaming content then great, but make no mistake they are fighting a very hard battle and you will not be seeing very much new-new content on watch instantly in the coming year or two.

There have been several high profile cases where companies pulled electronic, non-physical-media versions of content. Fact of the matter is, unless one has control either the device or of physical media, there's no way to prevent companies from pulling things off devices or from removing things from their available catalogs.

The only way to control one's destiny is to have physical media or to have information electronically stored on a device that one controls that the content provider doesn't control. Additionally, as DVDs and other physical media become incredibly cheap, it's easy to actually do this. Storage of 4.5" discs is also easy even for those in the smallest of living spaces if one discards the packaging in favor of those software storage bags that have room for hundreds of discs in a 12"x12"x4" space...

I have considered ripping all of my movies to electronic storage, but even not doing so it's not ridiculous to store them.

I subscribe to both the DVD and streaming plan. For my personal use, if it's not streaming, it's torrented. For the rest of the family, if it's not streaming, they DVD it, which are usually movies I have no desire to see, nor download. Some content providers give you no option other then to use DVD, then complain when you torrent it. It's not a lost sale, as I would never buy it anyways, it's a lost business opportunity(thus revenue) with streaming providers, such as Netflix. I would really much prefer to h

That's all well and good, but their entire library is not available online. I was recently watching a documentary series, "The Vice Guide to Travel", which I rather enjoyed. I was about halfway through the Poland episode and decided to watch the rest later. The following day when I logged into my account, I was informed that the series is now only available through the disc-by-mail service. Until their streaming library is more consistent and robust (I've already watched most of the interesting looking (to

One thing I've found helpful is on my Roku ($100 device for viewing internet TV, awesome toy, not affiliated with them at all) there's a couple of pay apps (~$5 I think) that will show you which things are leaving Netflix soon so you can hurry up and watch them. I agree 100% with what you're saying... two buts...but it's a part of the game of streaming media that won't ever go away.. the other but is that Netflix should do a *MUCH* better job of warning you that something you've been watching is about to d

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

I agree this is a good thing, but until the infrastructure for internet connections are good enough to get the quality of video / audio you get out of blu-ray I still want the disc by mail option. The other part of this is that when you eliminate the disc by mail you also eliminate the commentary options along with other nice extras that the discs have which get removed for streaming. So I think that both services have good reasons to keep them.

Internet connection is the other big factor. Huge parts of the country have 1.5mbps DSL or worse as their fastest option. Netflix streaming is usable at 1.5mbps but it isn't HD and no one else can do much of anything with the Internet while you're streaming. That might fly of a single person or couple without kids but it's a no-go with larger households.

We tried it a number of times when we had the "free" streaming that was bundled with our disc plan. Didn't work for us at all.

Not all people are poor and can only afford one small 15" laptop to have in their cardboard box. Media center players have existed for a decade and devices like a Roku box and a AppleTV are so dumbed down that even a Business Degree holding person can install and use. The small screen argument has not been an issue for years and is only for those that can't afford to buy a $99.00 box to hook to the TV that has a far better UI for looking through the movies on your computer or available to stream) if y

I doubt it. Video streaming, at least for the next few years, won't replace a thing. Telcos aren't greedy bastards when they artificially slow broadband, throttle traffic, or impose monthly limits. I mean, sure, they are greedy, but there's a more plausible explanation: they don't have the infrastructure and can't admit it. It's understandable, really: putting these things up (more like lying these things down, the US is not Japan after all) is expensive as hell, and they can't/won't invest fast enough (the

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

You are a college kid, you represent (one possible) future. In the here and now, DVDs are still an important segment of the business - Blockbuster wouldn't have died at the hands of a streaming only service, and we shouldn't be forced to accept streaming only solutions now that the competition has crumbled.

Yes, streaming is the future, but not a 2011 or 2012 future, I'm thinking more like 2020 if you want to hold on to 80+% of your subscribers.

I think you're working with a limited sample to base that assumption. For those of us living in very rural areas, this is not a good thing. I have no options that allow me to stream movie length video without incurring costs that are way out of line. I could purchase DVDs for less than streaming a dozen movies a month would cost me in data fees. On top of that, the Netfix streaming catalog is anemic when compared with their DVD options.

If you want DVD go to redbox. It's cheaper than Netflix anyways. Alternatively there's pay per rental on Amazon where you can get a wider array of content if you're willing to pay for it. Depending on how often you do that, it may *also* be cheaper to pay per movie on Amazon than to get DVD by mail from Netflix.

Why are all the good movies disappearing from Netflix streaming service. I know they are losing Starz, but these are disappearing now.

My guess is Netflix is headed for that dot.com graveyard.

It isn't just streaming, there have been quite a few things that were in disc form and now are no longer available via disc. This sometimes also just removes them from being available in Netflix, which isn't good either.

A whole bunch of great 80s/90s movies just popped up on there. I've recently watched Stripes, Grumpy Old Men, and the Blues Brothers. I know everything is subjective but I generally find that the movies I would categorize as "good" tend to wax and wane. Where you find the new/current content less interesting I was considering cancelling until they recently changed the lineup adding a few more movies that are in my queue. It's $8/mo. If I watch 3-4 movies a month I consider it a good deal.. and I genera

Sometimes, what's good for the stock-price is not good for the business.

Maybe he had to be "decisive" and "strategic" in order to survive so he went boldly ahead to exit the DVD-by-mail business and preserved investor confidence at the expense of the business, even though he wasn't sure it was a good idea.

What shocks (and appalls) me is that Reed Hastings has made several horrible mistakes, has led his business from profit to loss, and he will still take home a multi million dollar pay package for 2011. It's about time he admit that he is willing to actually PAY for his mistakes, and forego his compensation for the next year since it will clearly be a terrible one for the business. Until then, Netflix is a sinking Titanic with an irresponsible madman at the helm, refusing to change course.

I've worked for a couple of small companies. I think it requires different skill sets/strengths to get a company off the ground, known, and making money in the first place than it does to keep it running after you've gone public, have a bunch of employees, etc. Frequently it's not the same person who has both of these skill sets. A small company with very few employees, a few customers who know they are dealing with a small company, and no stock holders to keep happy can more easily make decisions on their feet and survive fairly well by making decisions that just get them through until tomorrow. As they grow, that agility is lost and I think a lot of managers and CEOs are not able to adapt their thinking and planning to the slower pace of movement and amount of resources it now takes to get things done.

I've worked for a couple of small companies. I think it requires different skill sets/strengths to get a company off the ground, known, and making money in the first place than it does to keep it running after you've gone public, have a bunch of employees, etc. Frequently it's not the same person who has both of these skill sets.

Exactly. To me, the only thing that Netflix could have done to save face given everything that has happened is for the board to find a new CEO, one that possessed vision in maintaining a leading, large media distribution company. Reed has plenty of strengths, but he is clearly in over his head as CEO and either needs to find a different spot in Netflix (CTO?) or the board needs to appoint a CSO that has authority over Reed to make sure he doesn't make any more blunders. Until then, I would much rather ho

Until then, Netflix is a sinking Titanic with an irresponsible madman at the helm, refusing to change course.

Possibly he should forgo some compensation. But your statement is simply wrong.

The thing is, he DID change course. Qwickster is gone. Yes it was a stupid idea but how many CEO's back down from stupid ideas once they are released to the public? If nothing else he deserves some credit simply because he was able to put ego aside and do the smart thing.

Fundamentally with Qwickster gone he has done nothing else wrong. The price increases were mandatory because of content providers forcing Netflix to pay more, it's just that simple.

I also think it was a good idea to split out charges for streaming/discs. If people want just one or the other, the service is cheaper than it was. I, as a consumer, prefer that choice unbundled (even though I'm currently buying both).

So basically everyone's beef is with a choice that is not even relevant any more. Give the guy some slack, he is caught between some VERY cheap customers used to getting product for free, and content providers who want to charge an arm and a leg.

...and after the MPAA stops attacking our computers. Streaming would be an overnight success if you could save streams to your hard drive, connect your computer to your TV without HDCP screwing you up, and not be told that you are forbidden to watch the movies you were allowed to watch yesterday. The MPAA has basically made a concerted effort to cripple streaming, and so naturally people will gravitate toward the physical media they know and love (and understand -- streaming is still poorly understood by

While I hate the idea that Netflix may not be around much longer, I'm not surprised. Mr. Hastings strategy seems to be focusing on maximizing contribution margins instead of maximizing profit. Getting one doesn't mean you'll get the other. What I don't understand is why Hastings believes that the major studios will allow Netflix to operate the online distribution at the price levels consumers demand. It is clear that Hollywood has no interest in lowering prices on digital content even though the marginal costs of distribution is minuscule. It won't be long before Netflix changes to a "on-demand" pricing model that Apple, Amazon, and a whole other set of competitors are already doing, and the recent exit of a third of their customers due to the recent price increase is a clear indication that Netflix is selling a highly elastic product. When will Hollywod ever learn that we don't want to pay 2.99 per episode for a show with DRM restrictions that force you to re-purchase the damn video for every device you have, and that paying $14 for a digital download when the DVD is selling at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target for $10 is price gouging.

When will Hollywod ever learn that we don't want to pay 2.99 per episode for a show with DRM restrictions that force you to re-purchase the damn video for every device you have, and that paying $14 for a digital download when the DVD is selling at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target for $10 is price gouging.

Easy...., when people lose interest and quit making these things profitable.

I agree, but what I don't understand is why Netflix customers are lashing out at Netflix when they should be lashing out at Hollywood and trying to stick up for Netflix. I suppose doing things in their own best interest (long-term) is not something Americans excel at.

Surely Netflix is in a position to understand that video streaming as a market has been crippled by the MPAA. Physical media will not be killed by streaming because people cannot do the sort of things they do with discs when they using streaming services. I know quite a few people who lend DVDs to their friends and family members, including DVDs from Netflix. People still do not always have Internet access, or if they are away from home Internet service may be very expensive -- but it is easy to use a portable DVD player (I may not be up to date on this, but as far as I know one cannot simply download video from Netflix and watch it on a laptop). Connecting a computer to a TV is still a pain and it still is not widely done; people generally do not want to watch movies on a smaller computer monitor when a larger TV screen is available.

When the MPAA stops making life hell for people who want to use their PCs to watch popular movies, killing DVD rental services will be more feasible.

Or does stopping the MPAA's antics require that consumers stop using DVDs? Your statements just bolster the MPAA's position. They read your post and think, "as long as we keep turning the screws on this streaming thing, consumers will keep wanting DVDs and we can sell DVDs."

I can think of a lot of scenarios where streaming through netflix is preferable to DVD. No need to share DVDs, just tell your friends to stream xyz and they can. No waiting for a DVD to come in the mail, to my experience the streams s

is to lose confidence in Netflix. They have a business model that should be how content is distributed by the cable companies. Everything on demand, cheap subscription rates, and access to older archives of content that would otherwise not be available except to purchase physical media, which consumers seem to be shunning.

The problem is that while the big cable companies are still struggling to maintain a greedy monopoly on TV content distribution, companies like Netflix are the necessary upset required to get these big companies making better decisions and offering better services. When Netflix was consuming the largest amount of Internet bandwidth, you know the big Telco companies started paying attention. A few decisions in the right direction and Netflix could replace cable services completely.

I do fear, however, that eventually Netflix may become extinct once big Telco gets into the game of offering similar services, but for now Netflix is the black sheep of content distribution and should be supported rather then complained about. For $7.99/mth I am accessing television and movies I have not seen before and no other service (cable, iTunes, movie rental stores) can offer me that value.

Its easy for people to b*tch about how poorly Netflix may have been operating their business, but in the end these same people will b*tch louder when Netflix shuts its doors for good.

FOIS Free On Demand has a huge overlap content-wise with the Netflix Streaming plan.

In a sense, if you have Verizon FIOS TV, you already have Netflix. The only difference is that the FIOS offerings are hard to find (probably so that it doesn't detract from their pay per view on demand offerings).

Being the fan that I am for Google products, and also knowing that the cash is there and the possibilities are there, if I was Google, I would buy netflix, and voila instant stardom for youtube netflix merger.....!!!

by messing with Netflix. Thanks to withholding their content from Netflix, my children have never, and will never, view a Disney movie. That means they will never pester me for Mickey Mouse dolls and all that crap. They will never demand to go to Disney World; they don't know it exists. And we all know that merchandising dwarfs box office revenue, so that's a giant revenue stream to them from my pocket that will not materialize. As a budget-minded father, I am grateful for that.

So not brainwashing my kids to want their crap is one positive externality of the MPAA picking up their ball and going home. Another is the quality foreign films, indy movies, and documentaries I have watched instead. I've discovered Korean, Indian, Russian, and other movies whose stories and production values equal or exceed Hollywood's. With those and the indies and documentaries I realize I am more entertained but also better informed now that the MPAA has pushed me outside the circle of their influence.

Lastly, all Slashdotters know and have said for more than a decade that if Big Content makes it too difficult for customers to pay for their product at an affordable price, then they will simply get it for free online. A friend recently lent me an external 500GB harddrive ($50) with more movies on it than you can shake a stick at. I know others exchange files in myriad other ways. And as hard as Big Content tries, that genie is out of the bottle and will never, never go back.

In the end, the only party that loses is Big Content. The rest of us gain in nearly every way.

I'm going to be unpopular but I love Netflix. I never used the DVD delivery service so that change didn't affect me, and I do understand why people who were previously on the DVD service would be upset about the changes. It seems like every time I get to a point that I "can't find anything on Netflix" that I'm interested in watching within a few days their contract/content/whatever changes and there's a whole new set of TV series, movies, documentaries, etc. that I'm interested in. I have a Roku box on all my TVs now and subscriptions to Netflix for movies and Hulu+ for stuff I want to keep up with that's currently being aired. Hulu and Amazon are shite for movie content and UI compared to Netflix on the Roku. The only thing that makes Hulu+ palatable is the subscription/queue so I can subscribe to all the shows I watch and then just watch the queue. The device/app/whatever that will really get my business is something that allows me to search all of my subscription services through a single interface and manage a single queue. That's the next killer app but it will take an act of Congress to make that possible.

Comments like this really annoy me. What has happened is that Netflix, a company that has kept rock-bottom prices for years, has been squeezed so hard by its providers that they're losing money hand over fist. Netflix is not losing money for all of 2012 because customers are leaving them.They're losing money because:

"Buying those rights is getting tougher, as studios are demanding more money for their valuable content. One analyst predicted earlier this year that Netflix's streaming content licensing costs will rise from $180 million in 2010 to a whopping $2 billion in 2012."

Netflix's cost of goods is increasing by more than a factor of 10. In light of that, I'm shocked that Netflix still managed to keep the cost to their customers down below $8/month (for streaming). Instead of sticking their customers with the entire increase, they decided to eat some of the cost by selling part of the company instead:

"Netflix now expects to lose money for all of 2012, and it is looking to raise cash in a secondary offering of its stock."

Now, would you rather stick with the company that is still trying its best to give you rock-bottom prices, or go back to the cable/phone companies who have spent decades trying to find ways to trick customers into paying more than you should (and who will go right back to doing it once Netflix has been laid low)? Unfortunately, human nature is such that most people (in the US, at least) would rather whine and act like Eric Cartman when they get upset than to stop and think things through. Netflix's competitors are betting on it, and unfortunately betting on the crappier side of human nature usually pays off for large companies.

"Buying those rights is getting tougher, as studios are demanding more money for their valuable content. One analyst predicted earlier this year that Netflix's streaming content licensing costs will rise from $180 million in 2010 to a whopping $2 billion in 2012."

Then don't pay it, and explain to your customers why you aren't paying it, or offer a deal where customers can choose to pay or not in an a la carte model. What Netflix did was fucking stupid. They took the side of their business that was presumably profitable and liked by their customers, and decided to split it off into it's own thing. How fucking dumb can you get? Companies pay billions of dollars to acquire business like the original Netflix model, and they decided they were going to jettison it.

I'd prefer a company with a spine. The problem with certain business types is that man times they are too afraid to tell their clients or their suppliers when something just isn't going to happen.

It's the classic problem of valuing one relationship over another. NetFlix doesn't want to piss off the content providers by telling them that they aren't going to license their content for higher prices, for fear that the content providers will cut them off; instead, out of fear, they are playing into the content provider's hands, and screwing up their relationship with their customers.

In the end, NetFlix ends up pissing off a lot of their customers, and charging them higher prices. The content providers, who have NetFlix now on this treadmill, will continue jacking up content prices until NetFlix keels over and dies. NetFlix's demise will be greatly aided by the content provider's themselves coming out with their own competing service, for less money than NetFlix.

You see, the content providers (these particular ones) have a particular MO, and have a penchant for avarice that compares favorably with that of a two year old. They want ALL of the money, not just SOME of it. See the history of DRM if you need examples of content providers going a little insane.

The best thing NetFlix can do is tell the content providers that while they would like to continue offering their content to end users, they cannot for the prices they ask. If they have to make a choice, they'd prefer to remove the content provider's content, and stay in business, rather than lose their customers through attrition, ultimately resulting in NetFlix's collapse. After all, NetFlix has a duty to its shareholders, and they can make more money, by offering less content at lower prices, than more content at prices likely to bankrupt them.